HKSAR v. LEE WAI PING AND ANOTHER

DCCC 539/2021

[2022] HKDC 97

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 539 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  D1 and D2 appeared before me and they faced a charge sheet containing 10 charges as follows.

2.  Charge 1 against D1 alone is Dangerous Driving, contrary to section 37(1)  of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374.  Particulars are that he, on 6 November 2020, at New Territories, in Hong Kong, drove a private car bearing registration mark GE1438 on a road dangerously.

3.  Charge 2 against D1 alone is Driving motor vehicle without proper control under influence of specified illicit drugs, contrary to section 39J(1)  of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374.  Particulars are that he, on 6 November 2020, in Hong Kong, drove a motor vehicle, namely a private car bearing registration mark GE1438, on a road while he was under the influence of specified illicit drugs, namely cocaine, benzoylecgonine (a metabolite derived from cocaine), ketamine and methamphetamine to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the said motor vehicle.

4.  Charge 3 against D1 alone is Driving while disqualified, contrary to section 44(1)(b)  of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374.  Particulars are that he, on 6 November 2020, in Hong Kong, being a person who was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence, while he was disqualified, drove a motor vehicle, namely a private car bearing registration mark GE1438, on a road.

5.  Charge 4 against D1 alone is Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1)  and (2)(a)  of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks)  Ordinance, Cap 272.  Particulars are that he, on 6 November 2020, in Hong Kong, used a motor vehicle, namely a private car bearing registration mark GE1438 on a road when there was not in force in relation to the user thereof by him such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks)  Ordinance, Cap 272.

6.  Charge 5 against D1 alone is Possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a)  and (2)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that he, on 6 November 2020, at Ground Floor, Foon Tak Building, No 40 Shing Fong Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely 0.53 gramme of a solid containing 0.46 gramme of ketamine.

7.  Charge 6 against D1 alone is Possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to section 8(1)(a)  and (2)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. Particulars are that he, on 6 November 2020, on a private car bearing registration mark GE1438, near Lamppost No DC0109A, Hing Fong Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, had in his possession dangerous drugs, namely 0.16 gramme of a solid containing 0.14 gramme of cocaine, 2.46 grammes of a solid containing 2.12 grammes of ketamine, 0.05 gramme of a crystalline solid containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, and 0.06 gramme of a solid containing ketamine and methamphetamine.

8.  Charge 7 against D1 alone is Possession of arms without a licence, contrary to section 13(1)  and (2)  of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.  Particulars are that he, on a private car bearing registration mark GE1438, near Lamppost No DC0109A, Hing Fong Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, had in his possession arms, namely one can of pepper spray, without a licence.

9.  Charge 8 against D2 alone is Knowingly misleading police officers by giving false information, contrary to section 64(b)  of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232.  Particulars are that she, on 6 November 2020, near Lamppost No DC0109A, Hing Fong Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, knowingly misled Police Constable 11801 and Woman Police Constable 16132, police officers of the Hong Kong Police Force, by giving false information, namely that D2 claimed to be Li Tsz Ching and presented an Acknowledgement of Application for a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card in the name of the said Li Tsz Ching.

10.  Charge 9 against D2 alone is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that she, on a day unknown in October 2020, in Hong Kong, stole one Hong Kong Identity Card, property belonging to Li Tsz Ching.

11.  Charge 10 against D2 alone is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that she, on or about 1 November 2020, in Hong Kong, stole one Acknowledgement of Application for a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card, property belonging to Li Tsz Ching.

12.  D1 pleaded guilty to all charges against him namely Charges 1 to 7.

13.  D2 pleaded guilty to all charges against her namely Charges 8 to 10.

Facts admitted by D1 and D2

Charge 1

14.  On 6 November 2020, at about 11:55 am, police constables PW1 and PW2 were conducting Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”)  on a police vehicle along the 1^st lane of Tuen Mun Road connecting Tsuen Wan Road (towards Kowloon).  The ANPR system recognized that the owner of a private car GE1438 (“V”)  travelling on the 2^nd lane, later known to be D1, has been disqualified from driving.

15.  PW1 thus requested V to stop at the hatched area between the 1^st and 2^nd lanes on Tsuen Wan Road (Southbound)  near Tsuen Tsing Interchange.  The relevant section of Tsuen Wan Road (Southbound)  has 3 lanes.  V first slowed down to about 20 km/h and was about to stop at the hatched area, but it suddenly swerved to the right, accelerated to about 100 km/h, and continued to travel along Tsuen Wan Road.  The police gave chase and kept requesting V to stop.

16.  During the chase, V kept overtaking other vehicles at around 120 km/h by switching lanes back and forth multiple times.  After passing Tsuen Tsing Interchange, Tsuen Wan Road (Southbound)  has two lanes and there are double white lines on the road.  The line nearer to the right lane is solid, while the line nearer to the left lane is broken, indicating that switching lanes from left to right is permissible but not vice versa.  The speed limit of the road is 70 km/h.

17.  After a while, V turned left to Hing Fong Road (Eastbound), Kwai Chung, and approached the junction with Kwai Fuk Road (“the Junction”).  There are 6 lanes on Hing Fong Road (Eastbound)  right before the Junction.  The 2^nd lane is for left turn, and the 3^rd is for traffic going ahead.  There is a hatched area between the 2^nd and 3^rd lanes.  V was travelling on the 3^rd lane of Hing Fong Road (Eastbound)  at that time, and the relevant vehicular signal was red.  There was another car (“the Car”)  stopped in front of the Junction on the third lane.  However, V did not stop.  It overtook the Car on its left by entering the said hatched area.  The nearside front of the Car was hit by V as a result.  V then travelled against the red traffic signal and crossed the Junction.

18.  V subsequently stopped near Lamppost No DC0109A, Hing Fong Road (Eastbound).  D1 then got out from the driver’s seat of V and fled.  PW1 also alighted and gave chase.

Charge 8

19.  In the meantime, D2 got out from the front passenger seat of V and was intercepted by PW2.  A woman police constable PW3 later arrived at the scene. Upon enquiry, D2 claimed to be Li Tsz Ching and presented an Acknowledgement of Application for a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card in the name of Li Tsz Ching (“the Acknowledgement”).

Charge 5

20.  D1 was subsequently intercepted by PW1 at Ground Floor, Foon Tak Building, No 40 Shing Fong Street, Kwai Chung.  PW1 found a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 0.53 gramme of a solid containing 0.46 gramme of ketamine (“E1”)  on the floor near D1.  E1 was about 50 cm apart from D1.

Arrest for Charges 1 & 5

21.  PW1 thus arrested D1 for “Dangerous driving” and “Possession of a dangerous drug”.  Under caution, D1 admitted he was speeding.

Charges 3 & 4

22.  D1 was confirmed to be disqualified from driving.  D1 was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for 6 months from 6 October 2020 in FLCC 1815/2020.  D1 was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for 12 months from 21 October 2020 in KCS 519754/2020.  PW1 thus further arrested D1 for “Driving while disqualified” and “Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance”.  Under caution, D1 said that he knew he was disqualified from driving.

Charge 2

23.  A Drug Influence Recognition Observation was also carried out, and PW2 was of the view that D1 was under the influence of drugs.  D1’s eyes were red, and his movement was slow.  D1 had to find support to keep his balance.  PW2 thus arrested D1 for “Driving under the influence of drugs”.

24.  With D1’s consent, his blood sample was taken later on the same day and sent to the Government Laboratory for analysis.  The result revealed that his blood sample contained traces of cocaine, 0.44 microgramme/ml of benzoylecgonine (a metabolite derived from cocaine), 0.02 microgramme/ml of ecgonine methyl ester (a metabolite derived from cocaine), 0.1 microgramme/ml of ketamine and 0.27 microgramme/ml of methamphetamine.

Charges 6 & 7

25.  Around 1:15 pm of the same day (6 November), V was searched.  The following items were found in it:-

(a)  A transparent resealable plastic bag containing 0.16 gramme of a solid containing 0.14 gramme of cocaine (“E2”)  on the floor in front of the driver’s seat;

(b)  A piece of plastic tape containing 0.06 gramme of a solid containing ketamine and methamphetamine (“E3”)  in the storage compartment next to the steering wheel;

(c)  A can of pepper spray (“E4”)  in the storage compartment at the offside front door;

(d)  A doll pouch which contained a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 0.05 gramme of a crystalline solid containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (“E5”)  in the glove box in front of the front passenger seat; and

(e)  Two transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 1.97 grammes of a solid containing 1.71 grammes of ketamine (“E6”)  in the said glove box.

26.  The following items were also found in D1’s clutch bag placed on the front passenger seat of V:-

(a)  A paper packet containing 0.02 gramme of a solid containing ketamine (“E7”);

(b)  A plastic tube containing traces of a solid containing ketamine (“E8”); and

(c)  A transparent resealable plastic bag containing 0.47 gramme of a solid containing 0.41 gramme of ketamine (“E9”).

27.  At around 2:25 pm on the same day, PW1 further arrested D1 for “Possession of dangerous drugs”.  Under caution, D1 said he had bought V for about 2 months and he was unfamiliar with the items therein.

28.  D2 was arrested by PW3.

29.  PW7 Yeung, the previous owner of V, confirmed that when he sold V to D1 in August 2020, he had cleared all his personal belongings from it beforehand.

D1’s VRI

30.  In a cautioned VRI conducted on 7 November 2020[1], D1 stated:-

(a)  He had been disqualified from driving since October 2020 due to speeding and drink driving;

(b)  He had not tidied up V since he bought it;

(c)  He had bought V for about 2 months;

(d)  D2 was the girlfriend of his friend;

(e)  He knew he had been disqualified from driving and so he accelerated and escaped from the police; and

(f)  In the course of the escape, V slightly hit another private car stopped on the road.

Charges 9 & 10

31.  Upon fingerprint comparison, D2’s real identity was unveiled.  Li Tsz Ching was located.  She was acquainted with D2.  Between September and October 2020, Li found her Identity Card missing.  She then applied for Identity Card replacement on 30 October 2020 and obtained the Acknowledgement.  Li only discovered the Acknowledgement went missing when she was contacted by the police about this case.

D2’s VRI

32.  In a cautioned VRI conducted on 7 November 2020, D2 stated that:-

(a)  She kept Li’s identity document because she was wanted;

(b)  Li was her friend;

(c)  She took away Li’s Identity Card in early October 2020 when she helped to hold Li’s bag;

(d)  She lost Li’s Identity Card in late October 2020; and

(e)  She also took away the Acknowledgement on 1 or 2 November 2020 after Li had applied for Identity Card replacement.

D1’s present admissions

33.  D1 now admits that he was driving V on a road while he was under the influence of specified illicit drugs to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of V.

34.  D1 now admits he was using V on a road without third party insurance.

35.  D1 now admits he had in his possession a can of pepper spray without a licence.

Criminal and Road Traffic records

36.  D1 has 7 previous criminal convictions one of which was Trafficking in dangerous drug(s)  (2014)  and three of which were related to driving/using a motor vehicle (October 2020)  including one drink driving.

37.  D1 has 9 other road traffic convictions including 2 x careless driving and 2 x Using a vehicle without insurance.

38.  D2 has 4 previous convictions none similar.

Antecedents

39.  D1 is aged 38 (37 at the time of the offences), educated to F5 level, unemployed but has previously worked as a warehouse worker and construction site worker.  He was last discharged from prison on 27 December 2017.  D1 is single and was living with his parents in public housing in Siu Lek Yuen, Shatin.

40.  D2 is aged 32 (31 at the time of the offences), educated to junior secondary level, unemployed but has previously worked as a saleslady and waitress.  D2 is single and was living with her parents in private housing in Yuen Long.

Mitigation

D1

41.  Ms Flora Cheng of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D1.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

42.  D1 is a certified skilled worker in metal scaffolding.  From January 2020, D1 could not find construction work due to Covid-19.  He then turned to become a warehouse attendant.  He then became unemployed towards the end of March 2020.  From then on, he lived on savings and support from his family members.

43.  D1 and D2 had been friends for years.  In the morning of the offence date, D2 asked D1 to drive her from Tuen Mun to Kowloon to handle an urgent matter.  D1 was reluctant at first because he was under disqualification from driving.  However, he later acceded because of repeated requests.

44.  When the police signaled him to stop, D1 initially slowed down but then sped because of panic.  His only thought was to get away.  Luckily no one was injured.  After he was arrested, he calmed down and realized how wrong he was. He admitted his misdeeds under caution and cooperated with the police throughout.

45.  D1 had the habit of taking dangerous drugs and those drugs found were for his own consumption.  He is no longer dependent on drugs because of the long time in custody.

46.  Regarding the pepper spray, it was purchased online not long ago for protection of his girlfriend (not D2).  Before he had the chance to give it to her, he was arrested.  It has never been used and it is the least lethal form of “arms”

47.  The greatest mitigation is the pleas of guilty which reflect D1’s remorse.  D1 accepts that for all of the offences, he will have to face custodial sentence.

48.  Ms Cheng urged the court to allow D1 the usual 1/3 discount, and submitted that the offences subject of Charges 1 to 7 were committed closely in time under the same circumstances.  Ms Cheng asked the court to consider the totality principle and to pass a lenient sentence.

49.  Ms Cheng offered no special reasons as to why the usual disqualification orders etc should not be imposed.

50.  Ms Cheng submitted 2 mitigation letters written respectively by D1 himself and a Deacon together with an employment certificate (with English translation, where applicable).  The contents of the letters are generally that D1 feels remorseful and promises to amend his ways and that a shorter sentence is asked for so to enable him to start a new life earlier.

D2

51.  Mr Summly Lee of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D2.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

52.  D2 is a single parent and she raised her son (now 16)  solely with the help of her mother while D2 was able to secure a full-time job in order to support her son, her parents (father in elderly home)  and her two younger siblings.  However, D2 was laid off in the first quarter of 2020 due to Covid-19.  D2’s last employment before arrest was as a part-time shop assistant in Japanese fast food chain with a monthly salary of about $11,000.  At present, D2’s younger sister (29)  and younger brother (27)  are both working.

53.  The background to the offences is that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her failure to attend court for an earlier possession of dangerous drug case of 2018.  In order to hide her real identity in case of police enquiry, she stole the HKID card from a close friend Ms Li.

54.  Ms Li later discovered the loss and asked D2 for the replacement procedure.  D2 then accompanied Ms Li to the Immigration Office to apply for a replacement.  Thereafter, D2 stole the Acknowledgement of Application and kept it to herself.  On the day of offence, D2 produced the Acknowledgement to the police when asked for identity.

55.  There is no sentencing guideline for the offences committed by D2.  Each case depends on its own facts.

56.  For “knowingly misleading the police”, the maximum penalty is 6 months’ imprisonment.

57.  For Charge 8, Mr Lee referred to two District Court sentencing cases namely HKSAR v Ng Wing Lun, DCCC 1111/2016 (in Chinese); and HKSAR v Lau Man To, DCCC 872/2010.

58.  For Charges 9 & 10, Mr Lee referred to one District Court sentencing case namely HKSAR v Lau Chi Wah, DCCC 68/2021 (in Chinese).

59.  Mr Lee identified one aggravating factor in the present case namely, D2 produced the stolen Acknowledgement with the dishonest intent to mislead the police regarding her true identity in order to evade a warrant of arrest.  Mr Lee added that the aggravating factor also applied to the two thefts because when D2 stole the two items, she had their future use in mind.

60.  D2 committed the offences out of naivety and stupidity.  Her timely pleas show her genuine remorse.  She wishes to turn over a new leaf.

61.  Mr Lee urges the court to take into account the totality principle and to pass a lenient sentence.

62.  Mr Lee urged the court not to tailor the sentence on Charges 8 and 9 by reference to the usual sentence for possession of ID card relating to another.

63.  Mr Lee submitted three mitigation letters in Chinese written respectively by D2, her son and her sugar-elder-sister.  The contents are generally that D2 has reflected on her past and is regretful and wishes to re-integrate into society; that she promises not to re-offend.  All writers asked for a lenient sentence so that D2 could reunite with her family earlier.

Sentence

D1

64.  D1 pleaded guilty in good time for which he shall be entitled to the full 1/3 discount on prison sentences.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify any further reduction.

Charge 1

65.  According to the facts, this is a case of serious dangerous driving.  D1 drove at speeds between 100 and 120 km/h on a road with speed limit of 70 km/h in broad daylight in order to evade police interception.  D1 was switching between lanes, sometimes in breach of road markings, in order to overtake other vehicles.  At the later stage of the police chase, D1 then overtook a stationary car by going into a hatched area on the car’s left and whilst doing so, partially collided with the car’s nearside before crossing a junction against the red traffic signal.

66.  The fact that there were specified illicit drugs in D1’s blood is a circumstance of aggravation, as per section 37(2D)  & (2E)(b)  of Cap 374.

67.  In light of the circumstance of aggravation, the maximum prison sentence for a dangerous driving offence is one of 4 ½ years.  In D1’s case, I shall adopt a starting point of 3 ½ years.

68.  In light of the circumstance of aggravation, the minimum disqualification from driving period is increased to 9 months.  Such period of disqualification and the taking of a driving improvement course are mandatory unless special reasons exist.

69.  I therefore make a disqualification order for all classes of vehicle against D1 for a period of 9 months.  I do not make an order for a driving improvement course under this charge because of section 72A(1B)  of Cap 374.

Charge 2

70.  The maximum prison sentence for a section 39J(1)  offence is one of 3 years.  Given the serious nature of the facts and the multiplicity of drugs found in D1’s blood sample, I shall adopt a starting point of 2 years.

71.  Disqualification from driving (normally for not less than 5 years)  and the taking of a driving improvement course are mandatory unless special reasons exist.

72.  I therefore make a disqualification order for all classes of vehicle against D1 for a period of 5 years (to run concurrently with the disqualification order made under Charge 1)  and I order that he is to attend and complete a driving improvement course at his own cost.  He shall not drive or hold a driving licence again until his disqualification period has expired and he has attended and completed the driving improving course.

Charge 3

73.  The maximum prison sentence for a driving while disqualified offence is one of 12 months.  D1 blatantly disregarded two disqualification orders imposed shortly before the present offence.  For this reason, I shall adopt a starting point of 9 months.

74.  Disqualification from driving (normally for not less than 12 months)  is mandatory unless special reasons exist.  The disqualification herein shall be in addition to any other period of disqualification ordered under any other provision of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374.

75.  I therefore make a disqualification order for all classes of vehicle against D1 for a period of 12 months and it shall run wholly consecutively to other disqualification orders made in this case.

Charge 4

76.  The maximum prison sentence for a Using a vehicle without 3^rd party insurance offence is one of 12 months.  D1 has 2 previous similar convictions one as recent as December 2017.  For this reason, I shall adopt a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment.

77.  Disqualification from driving (normally for between 12 months and 3 years)  is mandatory unless special reasons exist.  The disqualification herein is deemed to be a disqualification by virtue of a conviction under the provisions of Cap 374.

78.  I therefore make a disqualification order for all classes of vehicle against D1 for a period of 18 months from the date of conviction.

Charge 5

79.  For the possession of a small amount of ketamine, I shall adopt 6 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.

Charge 6

80.  For the possession of this multiplicity of drugs, I shall adopt a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment.  I am satisfied the amounts are not such as to trigger the latent risk concern of the court.

Charge 7

81.  The maximum prison sentence for a possession of arms without licence offence is one of 14 years.

82.  For D1’s possession of one can of pepper spray, I shall adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment.

(D1, please stand)

Individual sentences and Summary for D1

83.  For Charge 1, D1 shall go to prison for 28 months.

84.  For Charge 2, he shall go to prison for 16 months.

85.  For Charge 3, he shall go to prison for 6 months.

86.  For Charge 4, he shall go to prison for 6 months.

87.  For Charge 5, he shall go to prison for 4 months.

88.  For Charge 6, he shall go to prison for 10 months.

89.  For Charge 7, he shall go to prison for 4 months.

90.  Although the offences were committed on the same day within the same set of facts, some such as possession of dangerous drugs are not concomitants of the others eg dangerous driving.  Therefore, wholly concurrent sentences on all of them are out of the question.  However, I will allow concurrent or partially concurrent sentences whenever circumstances permit and also where the totality principle steps in to prevent an excessive overall sentence.

91.  As a result, I order that sentences on Charges 1 and 2 are to run concurrently with one another as Group A; the sentences on Charges 3 and 4 are to run concurrently with one another as Group B; the sentences on Charges 5 and 6 are to run concurrently with one another as Group C.  I order that 4 months of Group B, 8 months of Group C, and 2 months of the sentence on Charge 7 are to run consecutively among themselves, and the result is to run consecutively to Group A, making an aggregate sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment.

92.  As for disqualification orders, the orders made under Charges 1 and 2 are to run concurrently among themselves.  The disqualification order made under Charge 3 ie that of 12 months is to run consecutively to the disqualification orders under Charges 1 and 2, making an aggregate disqualification period of 6 years.  Because this case involves a second and third convictions (Charges 1 & 2)  of a relevant scheduled offence (the first being a conviction for a section 39A offence in 2020), I order that the disqualification orders made under Charges 1, 2 and 3 are not to start to run until D1 has finished serving the term of imprisonment imposed herein and any other term of imprisonment which he might be undergoing at the time he finishes serving the first-mentioned term.  Because of the effect of section 4(2)(a)  of Cap 272, the disqualification order of 18 months’ duration under Charge 4 has to start to run separately from the date of conviction.

93.  As for the driving improvement course, D1 is to attend and complete it at his own cost within the last 3 months of the overall disqualification period.  D1 cannot drive or hold a driving licence again until the disqualification periods have expired and he has so attended and completed the driving improvement course.

D2

94.  I have considered the sentencing cases referred to by Mr Lee in mitigation.

95.  D2 pleaded guilty in good time and so is entitled to the full 1/3 discount on sentence.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant any further reduction.

Charge 8

96.  The maximum penalty being 6 months’ imprisonment, I will adopt a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment bearing in mind this is a serious form of misrepresentation ie one relating to the identity of the person stopped by the police.

Charges 9 and 10

97.  I am satisfied the guideline sentence promulgated in HKSAR v Li Chang Li, HCMA 935/2004, for possessing a forged identity card or identity card belonging to another should not be followed, for the simple reason that that case dealt with the serious problem of illegal workers intending to use or actually using the identity card for seeking employment in Hong Kong.  Such intent is not present in the case involving D2 before me.

98.  In sentencing D2, I bear in mind the aggravating factor, identified by Mr Lee on behalf of D2, that for both thefts, D2 stole with the additional dishonest intent to use the document/ instrument to mislead a police officer in order to evade the execution of the warrant of arrest.  D2 acknowledged that a certain level of planning and premeditation was involved.

99.  In the premises, I shall adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment for each charge.

(D2, please stand)

Individual sentences and Summary for D2

100.  For Charge 8, D2 shall go to 3 months.

101.  For Charge 9, she shall go to prison for 8 months.

102.  For Charge 10, she shall go to prison for 8 months.

103.  The 3 offences are completely separate and ought, subject only to totality, to attract consecutive sentences.  I will consider totality and will impose the following sentences.

104.  I order that 2 months of the sentence on Charge 8[2], and 7 months of the sentence on Charge 9[3] are to run consecutively between themselves, and the result is to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 10[4], making an aggregate sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment.